What’s in your savings account?

By GREG PECK ( Contact )   Wednesday, February 1, 2012 - 11:50 a.m.

I got a news release by email Tuesday that was disconcerting and a bit surprising.

More than one in five Wisconsin households—22 percent—are “asset poor.” That means they have little or no financial cushion to hold them over in the case of job loss or if some other emergency leads to a loss of income. That's according to a report by the Corporation for Enterprise Development, based in Washington, D.C.

The nonprofit group’s 2012 Assets & Opportunity Scorecard ranked Wisconsin 20th overall among states for how residents here fare in terms of achieving financial security across 52 measures in five issue areas. Many Wisconsin residents have jobs but lack enough savings or other assets to cover expenses for three months if they lose a steady income.

Asset poverty, the Scorecard’s signature measure, is a conservative estimate of financial security because it counts all assets, including a home, that might need to be liquidated to pay for day-to-day needs. A more realistic measure of resources available to families is “liquid asset poverty,” which excludes a home, a car and others assets that aren’t easily converted to cash. Excluding these, and the liquid asset poverty rate for Wisconsinites jumps to 33.2 percent.

The news release reminded me of a powerful message from Froma Harrop in her column we printed Dec. 29.

“Frugality used to be a central middle-class theme,” the nationally syndicated columnist wrote. “What happened to it? We now read the stories of middle-class families in free fall because they lost a job and had no savings. Back in the mists of time, there was a rule about setting aside six months of salary to cover a possible job loss. Not only did the middle class stop saving, but it famously borrowed to maintain extravagant living beyond what its stagnating salaries could support.

“Middle-class Americans used to throw ‘mortgage burning parties,’ when, after 30 years, they finally paid off their home loans. They understood as long as they had a mortgage, they were not full homeowners.

“But come the housing bubble of the last decade, middle-class people no longer viewed their rising home prices as mere whipped cream on a prudent savings plan. They saw a higher value as the main course to be quickly devoured by borrowing against it. Now Americans’ equity in their homes (the home’s value minus mortgage) is half what it was in 2006.”

On Tuesday, I bounced that Corporation for Enterprise Development report off Harrop by email. She felt the same as I did—that you’d think more Badger State residents would be in better financial position given our Midwest values.

What does it say about us that we’re not? Are we now lumped with the middle class across the United States in being reckless with our money and in lacking frugality?

Greg Peck can be reached at (608) 755-8278 or gpeck@gazettextra.com. Or follow him on Twitter or Facebook

reader COMMENTS
Click here to view reader comments
(24)
kiowamohican
Feb 4, 2012 at 2:31 a.m.
Suggest removal

No one has been prosecuted, or EVER will, because 'private' banking executives of the mega 5 banks that control the whole financial sector are INTERCHANGEABLE with the governmnet. Does not matter what party it is...
AKA: OLIGARCHY

studs
Feb 3, 2012 at 8:08 p.m.
Suggest removal

It's so convenient to moralize and personalize such issues rather than to look at systemic issues (like falling wages for the middle class or the rise of the usurious lending practices). If we want to moralize anything, why not moralize the practice of the banks and CEOs and execs of those banks, who walked away with literally over a trillion of our money. Not one of them has been prosecuted, and they keep on getting assistance from the government (even as we are all left with their blight in the form of foreclosed properties). Shame on them!

shagcarpet
Feb 3, 2012 at 9:03 a.m.
Suggest removal

I grew up in the 80's. I paid off my debt (except my student loans) before we bought a home. We also had nearly 20% down. We bought a modest home which we could afford even if one of us wasn't working. The banks and our realtor even questioned why we weren't buying what we could "afford." We each contribute 10% of our income to our retirement accounts. We have six months emergency fund. So it can be done and not all gen x'ers just spend.

DavidG
Feb 2, 2012 at 1:12 p.m.
Suggest removal

The comment about "underwater" homeowners growing up in the 80's is interesting. Those who were in school in the 80's would of course be buying homes in the early 2000's when prices were rising much faster than they ever did before. Most young buyers were forced to borrow 90-95% of their home's price and couples had to work two jobs to pay the mortgage. This was perfectly acceptable. Then bang! Without warning in 2008 they found themselves in a hole because the house value was crashing while they still had to pay the bills.

This was no fault of the homeowners whatsoever because the banks and mortgage companies harped over and over how you can take a ARP mortgage and get out of it before the price resets. The banks kept no skin in the game and when they were about to go under, we bailed them out.

orange
Feb 2, 2012 at 10:32 a.m.
Suggest removal

Yes it's a sad state of affairs. People have to learn to live within their means. Unfortunatly they think that plastic card in their wallet or purse is their means. They forget that the bill will come at the end of the month,forget or don't care. In the end, no one is to blame but yourself.Own up to it and quit your crying.

ImJustSayin
Feb 2, 2012 at 7:37 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
joeflint
Feb 2, 2012 at 6:30 a.m.
Suggest removal

I'd argue there's a generational aspect too. We younger folks did not live through the Great Depression nor either world war. Frugality was tossed for good in the free-wheeling '80s, when, I'll note, most under water home "owners" grew up. Growing up in a few decades of success and excess has certainly changed the national psyche; indeed, turning away from the generational question, there is plenty of evidence in our politics: Perot was laughed at, Gore's lockbox was laughed at, and Bush/Greenspan encouraged Americans to 'keep shopping' and borrowing when they should've been calling for national sacrifice.

There is a lot of blame to go around but I feel little sympathy for home "owners" who agreed to mortgages well beyond their means in the expectation that home values would never again fall.

nscr17
Feb 2, 2012 at 4:41 a.m.
Suggest removal

nicksmom--I was using those figures as an example. It was just to prove a point that people need to live within their means. I understand what you mean by a 6 months buffer, but I personally think it would take much longer to figure things out if something were to happen. So for my personal peace of mind I prefer to have more. I do also have investments in which I contribute to on a regular basis.

kiowamohican
Feb 2, 2012 at 2:04 a.m.
Suggest removal

The "average person" is really no different then government, or society as a whole. EVERYTHING now is built on leveraged debt. It's been a philosophy that has been indoctrinated into the public post WWII when the credit, and credit card boom all started.

I hope people seriously do not believe this nonsense that the economy is in "recovery". My God; it's all be sustained by debt spending. It's the same as what the average person does if they don't have income or savings to meet their obligations..You simply get by via taking on more debt. Something that does actually work, until of course, your credit worthiness, and interest obligations implode, and collapse the entire house of cards.
.
We live in a debt economy. It's why interest rates are at 0%, and will remain that way FOREVER (the FOMC has recently extended it to 2014, and they extend it further at every meeting, to prop up the markets further). You have no incentive to save $$$ when interest rates are at 0, and inflation is starting to pick up more and more steam. Your $$$ saved literally looses value over night. If your going to save it, at least turn the $$'s to something with actual intrinsic value, like gold, or silver. Back your savings yourself, since the fiat based paper no longer has ANY backing to it. At least then you can retain some value in your savings.

janesvillecomments
Feb 2, 2012 at 12:08 a.m.
Suggest removal

I started 3 separate IRAs decades ago, and between the dot-com bust, the 9-11 market plunge, and the auto/bank economy tank, they have grown very little. I invest in my current employer's 401K plan, but the economy hit the mutual funds they use as well. I lost 15% of the value in one quarter - not very encouraging.

If I'm "lucky", the politicians will allow me to collect enough Social Security to supplement my meager retirement savings once I'm too old to maintain employment with a meaningful paycheck.

DavidG
Feb 1, 2012 at 8:43 p.m.
Suggest removal

How in the world are you going to get anywhere in regular savings accounts with today's interest rates. Only the very well to do have the means to invest with any kind of real return. With some many out of work, how in the world can they build a nest egg?

On the housing subject, the meltdown wiped out property values and left millions underwater. At the same time certain billionaires who invested in CDOs made out of our mortgages made millions. This money has to come back somehow.

bassman
Feb 1, 2012 at 7:44 p.m.
Suggest removal

NV does that mean you will take your name off of the RECALL PETITION ? Walker is making it a paradise,
again your right on that one , that's what it was before Doyle and his cronies made the mess.

NVgrf
Feb 1, 2012 at 6:25 p.m.
Suggest removal

Thanks to my union, a good pension, and a good job, we are doing just fine living in paradise! Thank you Wisconsin!

Sigma40
Feb 1, 2012 at 4:16 p.m.
Suggest removal

I only keep a percentage of my savings in the bank. Invest some, bury some,.... I wouldnt have a prob if i lost my job. Having only one source of income is pretty dumb.. one should always have backup. Like having only one car... stupid.

fromjanesville2waukesha
Feb 1, 2012 at 3:51 p.m.
Suggest removal

Wow nicksmom we agree on something! July 24, 2007 I yelled, "I'M DEBT FREE." (except for a modest mortgage) Here's the link for Dave Ramsey internet streams: http://streamingradioguide.com/radio-sho...

Debt freedom really is life changing.

stomskid
Feb 1, 2012 at 3:29 p.m.
Suggest removal

nothing thanks to walker....ok maybe some...

nicksmom
Feb 1, 2012 at 3:23 p.m.
Suggest removal

nscr17: You honestly think someone making a modest $4k / month could afford what you have listed off let alone get financing for it? I get your point but your numbers are ridiculous which makes me question just what the 1 year of savings your brag about is. That said, I've always maintained that Americans, politicians included could use Dave Ramsey's 12 week course, which by the way says 12 months in savings is foolish - anything beyond 6 months should be invested in the market for growth assuming you are debt free.

ohsayudidnot
Feb 1, 2012 at 3:19 p.m.
Suggest removal

I had savings, lost my job for 7 months last year. At that same time I had to start paying $300. a month in medical insurance, and still pay. I am now back to work FT with somewhat less savings but NO DEBIT (yay me).

jvldss
Feb 1, 2012 at 2:25 p.m.
Suggest removal

I am an American and as my politicians have taught me, I have 3 minutes of savings and 30 years of debt. God bless America.

nscr17
Feb 1, 2012 at 1:28 p.m.
Suggest removal

Financial security is very important. Most people CHOOSE to live paycheck to paycheck, others are more frugal, but there are a lot of things in todays society that people think are necessities and they are not! If people thought more about budgeting themselves more tightly, they could save a lot more. I understand that some people are just not in the position to save and I understand that, but when you are making (for example-2 person income) $4000 per month and choose to have bills totaling $3950 per month because you need to have a $250,000 house, 2 new cars, a boat, an RV, a smart phone, high speed internet, cable with all of the movie channels--I think you get where I am going here--you need to really look at your habits and your budget. We have enough for about 1 year in savings and growing.

TheTroll
Feb 1, 2012 at 12:36 p.m.
Suggest removal

Who is us, and what are we not? I can survive a lot more than six months on my savings.
of course, I live under the train bridge next to the river.

Before you post a comment, consider this:

Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy Agreement
  • Keep it clean. Comments that are obscene, vulgar or sexually oriented will be removed. Creative spelling of such terms or implied use of such language is banned, also.
  • Don't threaten to hurt or kill anyone.
  • Be nice. No racism, sexism or any other sort of -ism that degrades another person.
  • Harassing comments. If you are the subject of a harassing comment or personal attack by another user, do not respond in-kind.  Hit the "Suggest Removal" button on offensive comments.
  • Share what you know. Give us your eyewitness accounts, background, observations and history.
  • Do not libel anyone. Libel is writing something false about someone that damages that person's reputation.
  • Ask questions. What more do you want to know about the story?
  • Stay focused. Keep on the story's topic.
  • Help us get it right. If you spot a factual error or misspelling, email newsroom@gazettextra.com or call 1-800-362-6712.
  • Remember, this is our site. We set the rules, and we reserve the right to remove any comments that we deem inappropriate.

Post Comment

Commenting requires registration.

Username:
Password: (Forgotten your password?)

Comment:

ADVERTISEMENT